The medical model positions a disability as something that must be diagnosed and addressed with medical intervention. It views disabilities as something that reduces a person’s quality of life, curing the disability as the ultimate goal. Also, the medical model promotes the image of people with disabilities as needing health care or as “sick”. Many people with the philosophy of the medical model underestimate the human capacity to learn about the complexities of the human body, and thus to make safe decisions about one’s disability.

Medical Model of Disability

The social model positions society as the disabling agent, rather than an individual’s impairment. Under the social model, an impairment is not automatically a disability. It is only a disability when society is not structured (physically, socially, or culturally) to include that impairment/variation. For example, in a society where glasses/corrective lenses are accessible and socially accepted, the impairment of having blurry vision without them is not necessarily disabling. The social model seeks to make changes in society, rather than focusing on disabled people to change.

Social Model of Disability

Alison Kafer determines that the political/relational model differs from the social model because it includes lived experiences of people with disabilities, in addition to potential medical treatments. 

Political/relational Model 

Disability is multidimensional, and the three major models of disability cannot be cleanly separated in practice. Instead, each model highlights different aspects of experience, and tensions emerge when they are operationalized. For instance, someone with chronic pain may qualify as disabled under a medical definition, but effective medication and support might minimize disablement socially. Conversely, someone with arthritis could be highly disabled in practice yet excluded from formal recognition or resources if their condition does not meet political or diagnostic criteria.

Interactions Between Different Models of Disability

- Medical Model 
- Social Model
- Relational/Political Model

Arizona State University

A central argument of the article is that how we define disability at the outset of AI design shapes every step that follows. Definitions guide what data are collected, how labels are assigned, and what outcomes the system is meant to optimize. These definitional choices are rarely transparent (lending themselves to what researchers call the "black box" nature of AI systems). Yet, they embed value judgments that determine whether AI technologies reproduce ableist assumptions or move toward more inclusive design.

Definition as a Starting Point

Newman-Griffis, D., Rauchberg, J., Alharbi, A., Hickman, R., & Hochheiser, H. (2023). Definition drives design: Disability models and mechanisms of bias in AI technologies. First Monday, 28(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i9.12903

Definition Drives Design: Disability Models and Mechanisms of Bias in AI Technologies Reference

Historical Models of Disability 

This phrase refers to the fact that many AI systems—especially machine learning models—are so complex that it’s very difficult to see how they reach their conclusions. Inputs go in (like data), and outputs come out (like predictions or classifications), but the decision-making process inside is often opaque, even to the people who built the system. This lack of transparency makes it hard to identify bias, explain errors, or hold designers accountable, and it can reinforce the illusion that AI is neutral or objective when in reality it reflects human assumptions and societal inequities.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After